[geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:05:03 +1000
Good one Bernie... Yes I had never heard of the word savant, but I
did know about the skills of the nobrainers. Then there are those that really
have empty heads, actually all fluid with
only 10-15% brain material, having amazing skills like in art and music ,
photographic memory etc. BBC documentary years ago.
I am partial to its God theory, but much more enclined to other physical
reasons. I firmly believe , because of real evidence, in telepathy,
precognisance, hypnotism, poltergiests, and spirits. The Auras around living
material animal or vegetable show up in special photography. I prefer this
latter rational scientific reason over the "its a miracle of God" because the
phenomena is as often diabolical as it is good.
As for the no brainers, we have always known that people only need or use 10%
of their brain cells.. That is why I have never worried in my 70 odd years
about destroying a few million of irreplacable brain cells every day during my
happy hour-s.
Thanks for acknowledging that I had not slipped over the edge, and was still a
genius..
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:13 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
Philip,
"Bernie are you suggesting I may have slipped over the line? I hope
not."
Philip, Does this help? Bernie : ~ )
What is an idiot savant?
Current research theories show that intelligence is non-local and not
bound to the brain. Sometimes nature offers insight into a particular subject
by presenting a baffling enigma and contradictory example. Intelligence's
contradictory enigma is the idiot-savant.
The word idiot usually refers to a simpleton, in contrast to the word
"savant" in French that means "learned one." Idiot savants are a subgroup of a
class of people called idiots with an IQ of about 25.
Idiot savants are a group of humans that are incapable of learning,
writing or reading, yet they have unlimited access to specific, accurate
knowledge in the fields of mathematics, music, and other precise areas. Now the
irony of an idiot-savant is that this group of individuals does not acquire
knowledge by learning as the average human does. They mysteriously 'know'
explicit, exact, correct information. One may wonder: "How do idiots savants
know certain information or possess certain skills?" By whatever means they
obtain this information, they undermine current definitions about intelligence.
Does their knowledge show that a source of intelligence exists? Is it possible
to tap into this source and not know of its existence?
Dustin Hoffman made idiot-savants famous in the Hollywood movie "Rain
Man." He played the role of a mathematical genius able to keep track of cards
at the casino, yet unable to go to the bathroom alone or to make simple
decisions about what clothes to wear or foods to eat. Modern science cannot
explain this phenomenon.
from:
http://www.plim.org/2idiots.html
--- On Sun, 12/14/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 10:33 PM
"idiocy/insanity". In 1840 idiocy did not mean what it does today..
As is the case with many words.
Then, an idiot generally referred to a mentally sub normal person.
Today it refers to stupidity... which can be unlearned. I have unlearned a lot
of stupid mistakes.
Insanity has still the same meaning, though some people of that year
treated it as possessed by the devil...
It is said that there is a thin line between insanity and genius.
Bernie are you suggesting I may have slipped over the line? I hope
not.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:33 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
Steady on, Bernie.
You see, there is a problem with these go-between dialogues, and
I'm going to have to insist now that either Pawel joins in the debate himself
(by signing up) or that we just accept that his position is definitely
incorrect and move on. It will be disappointing if he does neither, but we
shall see.
Regards,
Neville.
-----Original Message-----
From: bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:29:59 -0800 (PST)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
Phil, I found out what category you're in. : ~ )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wikipedia:
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
The initial impetus for developing a classification of
mental disorders in the United States was the need to collect statistical
information. The first official attempt was the 1840 census which used a single
category, "idiocy/insanity".
--- On Sun, 12/14/08, philip madsen
<pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 12:20 PM
Neville, Bernie may have a triple personality disorder..
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:00 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
Pawel,
My actual comment was that "in conventional teaching,
the stars are effectively at infinity." I did not say that they were at
infinity (Polaris, for instance, is stated as being ~ 430 l-y distant). It all
comes down to the familiar parallax effect of very distant objects in a local
scale of distances.
Please consider signing up to the forum; you would be
most welcome. I do not usually prolong discussion in a go-between way.
Best wishes,
Neville
www.realityreviewed.com
-----Original Message-----
From: bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:30:07 -0800 (PST)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
MATERIAL objects CAN'T be at "infinity" in
numbers or amounts because, they are MATERIAL. MATTER is FINITE. PK
True, but I think Neville was talking as
regards to optics and telescopes lenzes etc. Photo a star the camera is set at
infinity. PM
I wasn't aware of that. PK
The world exhibits a strain at the equator of
piN johns per km^2 which is absent from the poles, which is exactly in accord
with the centrifugal/cetrepetal force due to a anglur momentum of a 24 hour
cycle of rotation, around a polar axis. Things get progresively heavier as one
moves N or S of the equator.
According to shanedk from youtube, who loves to
"debunk" debunkers, it's only 0.3 %. According to others it's 0.9% and so on.
There is no agreement to it.
However, there still should be a DIFFERENCE in
weight. However... shipments of commodities like coffee and OIL are NOT
ADJUSTED to that supposed weight changes!
What does it mean? Probably that there is NO
weight difference because, the Earth doesn't rotate at all. PK
Pawel Kolasa
--- On Sat, 12/13/08, philip madsen
<pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, December 13, 2008, 2:59 PM
Inserted
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: Geocentrism/RealityReviewed
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:21 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Polaris Effect
5.
A correct observation from Pawel.
The English term for 1,000,000,000 is a
milliard. The American term is a billion. In English, a billion is
1,000,000,000,000 which, to an American is a trillion, whereas the English
trillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. NJ
Yes, very well said. I just wanted to point out
that, If somebody writes for Americans, he should use American terms. PK Why,
they only rule the world.. Once the masses find out, that will end quickly. By
the way we already also use the American billion 1000000,000000.. in australia
. little "a" for the 70 th state. We got $ this too.
Where were we? Oh yes, star trails. The reason
that Pawel is incorrect is that, in conventional teaching, the stars are
effectively at infinity. NJ
MATERIAL objects CAN'T be at "infinity" in
numbers or amounts because, they are MATERIAL. MATTER is FINITE. PK True,
but I think Neville was talking as regards to optics and telescopes lenzes etc.
Photo a star the camera is set at infinity.
The 24-hour movement of the World around its
alleged orbit then has no observable effect of the sidereal NJ
I don't understand "sidereal". I don't
understand this statement: "rotation of the World about its polar axis". PK
The world exhibits a strain at the equator of piN johns per km^2 which is
absent from the poles, which is exactly in accord with the
centrifugal/cetrepetal force due to a anglur momentum of a 24 hour cycle of
rotation, around a polar axis. Things get progresively heavier as one moves N
or S of the equator.
I think NJ is correct in that a shift of stars
in one day would be hardly observable with the eyes. But instruements will most
definitely show the near single degree of movement.
Whilst I fully accept the observational data of
heliocentrism, I do not accept their physics which presumes to explain it.
There is a possible alternative view which is in accord with the Biblical
record. Even agnostic scientists will/can concur with that. Phil
Pawel Kolasa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
A correct observation from Pawel.
The English term for 1,000,000,000 is a
milliard. The American term is a billion. In English, a billion is
1,000,000,000,000 which, to an American is a trillion, whereas the English
trillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Where were we? Oh yes, star trails. The reason
that Pawel is incorrect is that, in conventional teaching, the stars are
effectively at infinity. The 24-hour movement of the World around its alleged
orbit then has no observable effect of the sidereal rotation of the World about
its polar axis.
Neville
www.realityreviewed.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
I hear the statement that "it's wrong" but I
get no link to an explanation "why?".
Also, Neville must be from Europe because he
uses word "milliard" instead of "billion".
cheers,
Pawel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
Bernie,
No, this is incorrect.
Neville
www.realityreviewed.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
Polaris Effect. by Pawel Kolasa
On several time-delayed pictures there are
shown circulating stars. Supposedly, because of Earth's movement around its own
axis. However, their circulation is in the wrong direction… If Earth is moving
around, then the stars should "move" horizontally, with slight bent upward on
northern hemisphere and a slight bent downward on southern hemisphere. That's
because Earth is a sphere. The stars should appear to move in opposite
direction to Earth's movement. In fact, the stars are moving in a circle,
around a star Polaris. Hence, "Polaris effect". The stars on the outside of
Polaris move faster. It is because; the distance they traveled is bigger. They
also move in unison, which proves that they are somehow connected. To make it
even more puzzling, the time interval of the film exposure does not match the
part of the circle that the star would travel in that part of day. I mean if
the time exposure is 4 hours, then if 24 hours is full circle then 4 hours
should be one sixth of the full circle. However, it's only about 1/12. The
direction of stars' rotation seems to be the same as Earth's… If Earth is
turning from left to right, then the stars should appear to turn from right to
left! If the stars move from left to right, then Earth may be stationary. The
Polaris star is always stationary. The only way a point can remain stationary,
is when both the observer and the point are stationary, or both move in unison.
Since the other stars move in unison relatively to Earth, the Polaris and the
Earth must be motionless.
Pawel Kolasa
--------------------------------------------------------
Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at
www.inbox.com/earth
Other related posts:
